Traditional versus three-dimensional teaching of peritoneal embryogenesis: a comparative prospective study

IntroductionAnatomy teaching is newly boosted by the development of interactive three-dimensional (3D) teaching techniques. Nevertheless, their superiority as teaching aids has never been demonstrated. The aim of this study was to compare 3D and traditional chalk teaching efficiency in terms of student memorization concerning peritoneal embryogenesis.Materials and methods165 students from the Faculties of Medicine of Sfax (Tunisia) (n = 81) and of Paris-Descartes (France) (n = 84) were taught peritoneal embryogenesis either via a 3D technique (interactive DVD ROM) (3D group, n = 85) or via the traditional chalk technique (CL group, n = 80). Both groups were subjected to an evaluation test including 34 questions distributed in six chapters at the end of the course.ResultsThe overall rate of correct answers was higher in the 3D group (65.12 ± 14.88 vs. 49.33 ± 16.17%, p < 0.001). It was the same for five of the six chapters of questions excluding the chapter concerning the clinical implications (p = 0.06). There was no significant difference between 3D and CL groups regarding the 20 questions focusing on static phenomena (64.52 ± 27.10 vs. 58.87 ± 23.67%, p = 0.24), but the rate of correct answers was higher in the 3D group for the 14 questions focusing on dynamic phenomena (65.96 ± 20.97 vs. 28.17 ± 24.40%, p < 0.001).ConclusionThe 3D technique is significantly more efficient than the traditional chalk technique for the teaching of peritoneal embryogenesis in terms of short-term memorization and particularly for the assimilation of dynamic phenomena. Medium-term and long-term studies are needed to demonstrate that this benefit has a long-lasting impact.

[1]  J. Rodríguez-Vázquez,et al.  A computerised technique for morphometry and 3D reconstruction of embryological structures , 2005, Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy.

[2]  P. McKeown,et al.  The impact of curricular change on medical students' knowledge of anatomy , 2003, Medical education.

[3]  M. Stuart,et al.  Survey of clinicians' attitudes to the anatomical teaching and knowledge of medical students , 2005, Clinical anatomy.

[4]  O. Ami,et al.  La modelisation tridimensionnelle en morphologie , 2006 .

[5]  J F Uhl,et al.  [3D modeling in the field of morphology: methods, interest and results]. , 2006, Morphologie : bulletin de l'Association des anatomistes.

[6]  Lawrence J Rizzolo,et al.  Should we continue teaching anatomy by dissection when ...? , 2006, Anatomical record. Part B, New anatomist.

[7]  B. Moxham,et al.  Attitudes of professional anatomists to curricular change , 2005, Clinical anatomy.

[8]  G L Nieder,et al.  Using QuickTime virtual reality objects in computer‐assisted instruction of gross anatomy: Yorick—the VR Skull , 2000, Clinical anatomy.

[9]  Taylor Dc,et al.  Evaluation of the operating room as a surgical teaching venue. , 1992 .

[10]  D. Patten,et al.  Anatomy teaching: ghosts of the past, present and future , 2006, Medical education.

[11]  H. van Mameren,et al.  Do students have sufficient knowledge of clinical anatomy? , 2005, Medical education.

[12]  E. Cabanis,et al.  Going back to dissection in a medical curriculum: the paradigm of Necker-Enfants Malades , 2004, Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy.

[13]  G D Guttmann.  Spilling the beans on Java 3D: A tool for the virtual anatomist , 1999, The Anatomical record.

[14]  R S Haluck,et al.  Computers and virtual reality for surgical education in the 21st century. , 2000, Archives of surgery.

[15]  B. Moxham,et al.  The relationships between learning outcomes and methods of teaching anatomy as perceived by professional anatomists , 2008, Clinical anatomy.

[16]  D. C. Taylor,et al.  Evaluation of the operating room as a surgical teaching venue. , 1992, Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie.